The Starchild Skull

originally posted by: tanka418
you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

The data shows it was human, but some people refuse to accept the facts, as it must be aliens!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

The data shows it was human, but some people refuse to accept the facts, as it must be aliens!

Show me!

You show me in the available data where it even hints at this thing being Human.

I don't see anybody saying "aliens" per se', mostly "non human"...so quit exaggerating this whole thing, take a deep breath, relax, and explain just HOW it is Human...Please use relevant data!

I've shown how Mother isn't Human using current data...Now its your turn...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SPECULUM
We are suggesting that Aliens, or at least these type of Aliens, Indeed share similar genetics with Humans.

This is one reason why no smoking gun has ever been discovered..What might be found eventually is that the rest of the universe may share all similar DNA as well, with all earths species

Sorry, that's a copout way of saying no amount of evidence will ever persuade me because I will make stuff up.

Only humans have human DNA, only humans have a human X and Y chromosome.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that...Currently

There will come a time when all will be known of our Celestial brethren

Surprised no one has shared this accurate recreation...




I'd also like to add that it is very rare to see completely proportional deformation. The Elephant Man was used as a comparison early in the thread, but as it is clearly shown his deformation was very aggressive and trully DEFORMED, due to the desease which causes soft tissue to become bone.

The Starchilds features are completely proportional. Regardless of your argument, no amount of deformation can account for the differential molecular structure of the bone material. It clearly is NOT human. Not completly anyway.

It's baffling to see how many are so desperately attached to their conforming beliefs that they can't even humour the thought of discovering extraterrestrial remains. Sad, really.

how could they accurately recreate that without the lower face region,as I read that area was not found?

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
how could they accurately recreate that without the lower face region,as I read that area was not found?

They just made it up, just like they made up the claims about it being alien!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

The data shows it was human, but some people refuse to accept the facts, as it must be aliens!

How does the fact the cranium did not encase a human brain indicate it was human? nothing about it is human. explain the chemistry of the bone which is not human. explain the red residue inside the bone. explain the wear on the teeth indicating it was not a child. explain the fibers inside the non-human bone. explain the hardness of the non-human bone. oh that's right! it is non-human. that explains it.

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
Surprised no one has shared this accurate recreation...

I'd also like to add that it is very rare to see completely proportional deformation. The Elephant Man was used as a comparison early in the thread, but as it is clearly shown his deformation was very aggressive and trully DEFORMED, due to the desease which causes soft tissue to become bone.

The Starchilds features are completely proportional. Regardless of your argument, no amount of deformation can account for the differential molecular structure of the bone material. It clearly is NOT human. Not completly anyway.

It's baffling to see how many are so desperately attached to their conforming beliefs that they can't even humour the thought of discovering extraterrestrial remains. Sad, really.

It's "accurate" why... because you just said so?

I googled a photo of a normal child yesterday that looked similar to the clay reconstruction, had it been done with a human in mind.

You're right - it is baffling to see how many are so desperately attached to their conforming beliefs that no amount of evidence will sway them.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

The data shows it was human, but some people refuse to accept the facts, as it must be aliens!

How does the fact the cranium did not encase a human brain indicate it was human? nothing about it is human. explain the chemistry of the bone which is not human. explain the red residue inside the bone. explain the wear on the teeth indicating it was not a child. explain the fibers inside the non-human bone. explain the hardness of the non-human bone. oh that's right! it is non-human. that explains it.

Someone's been eating up all the Pye.

originally posted by: SPECULUM

There will come a time when all will be known of our Celestial brethren

Who talks like that?


Oh yeah, right.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I'd also like to add that it is very rare to see completely proportional deformation.

Really? How many deformations have you seen? And how does something that occurs rarely rule out that it that it has occurred in this case?

what's yer point other than being snarky?

a reply to: draknoir2

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
Surprised no one has shared this accurate recreation...

Thanks for the image...it got me to searching and I found this that addresses the whole deformity issue...

Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S 2004:

In general, the skull has the basic components of a human skull: i.e., a frontal bone, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, these bones have been markedly reconfigured from the “normal” shapes and positions such bones usually have. In addition, the bone itself has been reconstituted to an equally marked degree, being somewhat less than half as thick as normal human bone, with a corresponding weight of roughly half normal. There is no asymmetrical warping or irregular thinning that is the hallmark of typical human deformity.

-- hiddenhumanhistory.com...

And;

Dr. Bachynsky (Canadian radiologist) noted that there is no evidence of erosion of the inner table of the skull. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can safely be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes a widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. There was consensus agreement to both of these observations by other experts conversant with these features.

-- same source

There are several other medical professionals weighing in on this; they all seem to agree...no deformation!
So I truly am left wondering: "How could anybody possibly construe this to be "Human"?"

I can see this not being extraterrestrial, though, IF it is terrestrial...the "reconstruction" has the wrong lips!

originally posted by: tanka418

Gotta love it! When all else fails, resort to unreasonable demands that you hope will not be met...
In the results provided so far testing labs have been specified, although individual technicians have not. These are all accredited labs...so your demands of "real lab", and "under controlled conditions" have been met...by the accreditation process.

The 2011 tests were carried out by an unnamed lab and the ''identity of the research team members require temporary anonymity' (from the starchildproject website). Please explain how the 'under controlled conditions' have been met in this case as we don't know who did the tests and where.

When studies are carried out correctly, you will see the names of all those involved in a peer reviewed article. What do we see here? Nothing, no names, no real report.

While you are not required to accept a damn bit of it; you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

Ditto

Maybe its just me...but, I can't quite "see" how y'all could have missed such obvious anomalies.

Maybe it's just me but I really don't understand how you can't see it is a hoax.
Do you know what shows that this is a hoax? The fact that they don't need to raise millions for further research, they could just lend it to a university and they would perform all tests for free. Instead they keep it hidden and secret and never release any full lab report. Typical of a hoax.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

There was only one point.

Sorry, but everytime some says the starchild skull isn't human I always think of the image below.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

Taken from THIS website. Looks similar in many ways to the other picture of the reconstruction IMHO.

originally posted by: Agartha
The 2011 tests were carried out by an unnamed lab and the ''identity of the research team members require temporary anonymity' (from the starchildproject website). Please explain how the 'under controlled conditions' have been met in this case as we don't know who did the tests and where.

Actually, we do know the "how":
These tests are carried out by robots. Specialized bits of technology that does things only the way the system was designed, and built. Thus the "conditions" are controlled by the Bot itself. There is very little the operators can usurp from the machine. You are also rather unlikely to find such a machine "outside" an accredited lab; they are rather expensive.

Maybe it's just me but I really don't understand how you can't see it is a hoax.
Do you know what shows that this is a hoax? The fact that they don't need to raise millions for further research, they could just lend it to a university and they would perform all tests for free. Instead they keep it hidden and secret and never release any full lab report. Typical of a hoax.

It is doubtful that an University would like to take on such a project for a variety of reasons, but I think mostly; Pye needed to demonstrate that it is sufficiently unique to even begin to warrant a more "in depth" study.

He has done that!

Whether or not it is extraterrestrial remains to be demonstrated. Whether it is "alien" is established fact.

alien: not familiar or like other things you have known : different from what you are used to

-- www.merriam-webster.com...

Your objections are noted, and not entirely disagreed with, but, I see this used as a convenient excuse to reject otherwise valid data. I believe that is where you're coming from.

Through the rejection of data and lack of real research, even a little, you have reached the wrong conclusion.

I have already demonstrated how the mother wasn't Human, as so many want to believe, see post above. I see pseudo-skeptics "glom" onto what ever they can to attempt to support their position; it always fails.

In the case of this Starchild it is nearly always because of the misinterpretation of obsolete data..it has been quite abundant in this discussion.

So anyway; IF you have something to say about the data, or its interpretation, please...the more serious views the better.

originally posted by: tanka418
Pye needed to demonstrate that it is sufficiently unique to even begin to warrant a more "in depth" study.

Which he waas unable to do, as it is human.

Whether or not it is extraterrestrial remains to be demonstrated. Whether it is "alien" is established fact.

It has been demonstrated to be human. No matter how you try and spin those facts you fail.

I see this used as a convenient excuse to reject otherwise valid data.

You are the one here rejecting valid data that shows it is human!

Through the rejection of data and lack of real research, even a little, you have reached the wrong conclusion.

Actually, that is you, as the data shows it is human.

I have already demonstrated how the mother wasn't Human,

No you have not, the facts and data show the mother was human!

In the case of this Starchild it is nearly always because of the misinterpretation of obsolete data..it has been quite abundant in this discussion.

What is obvious is some people want to reject the facts and data that shows it is human!

IF you have something to say about the data, or its interpretation, please...the more serious views the better.

The facts and data show it is human, but some people are desperate for it to be alien!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
Pye needed to demonstrate that it is sufficiently unique to even begin to warrant a more "in depth" study.

Which he waas unable to do, as it is human.

Whether or not it is extraterrestrial remains to be demonstrated. Whether it is "alien" is established fact.

It has been demonstrated to be human. No matter how you try and spin those facts you fail.

I see this used as a convenient excuse to reject otherwise valid data.

You are the one here rejecting valid data that shows it is human!

Through the rejection of data and lack of real research, even a little, you have reached the wrong conclusion.

Actually, that is you, as the data shows it is human.

I have already demonstrated how the mother wasn't Human,

No you have not, the facts and data show the mother was human!

You will need to actually look at what I presented and address that specifically...

In the case of this Starchild it is nearly always because of the misinterpretation of obsolete data..it has been quite abundant in this discussion.

What is obvious is some people want to reject the facts and data that shows it is human!

IF you have something to say about the data, or its interpretation, please...the more serious views the better.

The facts and data show it is human, but some people are desperate for it to be alien!

I'm sorry man, but, where is your data?

You kinda need to "show your work" here, We / I need to "see" actual data, IF you can not provide this data, then you have nothing!

So, please either "put up or shut up." I would really like to see what you think is proof it is Human...

originally posted by: tanka418
I'm sorry man, but, where is your data?

Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female.

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull. Novella considers this "conclusive evidence" that the child was both male and human, and that both of his parents must have been human in order for each to have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes

www.theness.com...